USPTO Patents Application 09995565

Application No. 09^Po,565

Reply to Office Action of April 24, 2003

REMARKS/ ARGUMENTS

Favorable reconsideration of this application in light of the following discussion is
respectfully requested.

Claims 3, 4 and 6-9 are presently pending in this application, Claims 3 and 6-9 having
been withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner.

In the outstanding Office Action, Claim 4 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
being anticipated by Goswami et al. (U.S. Patent 5,687,706).

Before addressing the outstanding art rejection, a brief summary of Claim 4 according
to the present invention is believed to be helpful. Claim 4 is directed to a heat storage device
including a heat storage tank charged with a heat transfer medium which also serves as a heat
storage material for storing the heat supplied from the outside, a heat transport device which
execute an injection and an extraction of heat between the inside of the heat storage tank and
the outside by the inflow and the outflow of the heat transfer medium, the heat transport
means being disposed so as to execute a heat transport between the central portion in the heat
storage tank and the outside, and suppressing means for suppressing the natural convection of
the heat storage material, the suppressing means being disposed in the outer portion in the
heat storage tank. By providing such suppressing means, the heat storage material develops
the natural convection in the central portion but not in the outer portion of the storage tank,
thereby reducing the temperature difference between the surface of the heat storage material
and the external environment. As a result, the heat storage device recited in Claim 4
effectively reduces the influence of the external environment upon the inside portion of the
heat storage tank and the heat loss toward the outside is significantly suppressed.

The outstanding Office Action asserts that Goswami et al. disclose a heat storage
device as recited in Claim 4. However, it is respectfully submitted that Goswami et al. do not
teach "suppressing means for suppressing the natural convection of the heat storage material,

Application No. 09^^,565

Reply to Office Action of April 24, 2003

said suppressing means being disposed in the outer portion in the heat storage tank" as recited
in Claim 4. Specifically, Goswami et al. disclose a method in which a highly viscous heat }\
medium is used to suppress vertical thermal convection in the Goswami et al. heat storage ^jj v

tank but not radial convection and heat transfer, because according to Goswami et al. , the

heat storage materials must be uniformly heated and thus efficiently utilized. 1 Furthermore,
the Goswami et al. heat storage tank simply discloses a "lower portion" and an "upper
portion," and according to Goswami et al. , the "viscous liquid" serves as a heat transfer
medium. 2 Also, the Goswami et al. heat storage tank is designed such that the "lower
portion" produces more heat than the "upper portion," thereby requiring these two distinctive

portions. 3 Applicant further wishes to point out that the Goswami et al. heat storage tank

/■ ~ ■ — ■ ~ ■

stores heat by utilizing "PCM pellets," not "viscous liquid," 4 as a heat storage material, and

the "PCM pellets" are comprised of high density polyethylene; trisodium phosphate
dodecahydrate and sodium hydroxide; or aluminum ammonium sulfate dodecahydrate and
calcium fluoride. 5 Some of these materials effloresce and/or deliquesces, but none of them

are liquid-absobefacient. Accordingly, Goswami et al. are not believed to disclose dispersion

of an absorbent material in the heat storage material. Additionally, Goswami et al. require
the viscous fluid as having a high heat transfer characteristic and non-toxic for water heating
applications, and disclose only propylene glycol as such a material.

Based on the discussions presented above, Applicant respectfully submits that the
structure recited in Claim 4 is believed to be clearly distinguishable from Goswami et al. , and
thus is not anticipated thereby.

See Goswami et al. , column 5, lines 15-23.

2 See id., Abstract.

3 See id., column 3, lines 23-36.

4 See id., column 3, lines 35-36.

5 See id., column 3, lines 36-43.

3

Application No. 09^^,565

Reply to Office Action of April 24, 2003

For the foregoing reasons, Claim 4 is believed to be allowable. Furthermore, since
Claims 6-9 depend from Claim 4, substantially the same arguments set forth above also apply
to these dependent claims. Hence, Claims 6-9 are believed to be allowable as well.

In view of the discussions presented above, Applicant respectfully submits that the
present application is in condition for allowance, and an early action favorable to that effect is
earnestly solicited.

Respectfully submitted,

OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND,
MATER & NEUSTADT, P.C.

22850

Tel: (703)413-3000
Fax: (703)413 -2220
GJM/AY:fm

I:\ATTY\AKY\21s\216369\ame 2 RR.DOC

regory J. Mai
Attorney of Rel
Registration No. 25,599

ibrd

Akihiro Yamazaki
Registration No. 46,155

4